Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Final Cut Pro X Released

So you are essentially making the argument that tools can enforce bad habbits for their users, and thus people who edit with FCPx will lack some of the left brained skills required to be a productive editor?

I don't think that statement can be made so easily, so I disagree with that part (though I understand where you are coming from).

First, do you have FCPX? I have to admit, when I first opened FCPX, I thought I was staring at iMovie. After 10 minutes of investigation, I'm already working and organizing in a way that makes me feel like I am working in FCP. If you are an editor making your living with FCPX and working on large projects, I promise you FCPX isn't going to limit your ability to organize your footage and perform "left brained tasks" (though currently, it is going to limit you in a lot of other areas until there is an update).

I don't agree with the "right-brained" "left-brained" natural selection process that you suggest will happen, but if you are really a top dog editor, won't you have an assistant to organize all of that "left-brained" stuff for you? (kidding...maybe)

I also don't agree with the oversimplification of editing tasks there, or the psychology behind the "new wave" of editors FCPX is "surely" to wrongly indoctrinate, but a lot of stuff has happened this week. It's been emotional for a lot of us, haha.
 
Maxi Claudio said:
I think this is an Adobe conspiracy. No coincidence, Adobe release great new features in CS 5.5 Creative Suite, Just weeks before Apple releases a crippled competitor. Adobe you are a sly one. Next you'll tell us that you support R3D!!!!
Click to expand...

I have been working on Adobe video products for 12.5 years, staring on Premiere 5.1c. I think at some point it would be fun to write half a novel about the history of Apple/Adobe/Macromedia from a video standpoint... Some people would find it interesting...

Cheers

Dave
 
David McGavran said:
I have been working on Adobe video products for 12.5 years, staring on Premiere 5.1c. I think at some point it would be fun to write half a novel about the history of Apple/Adobe/Macromedia from a video standpoint... Some people would find it interesting...

Cheers

Dave
Click to expand...

Dave, you should write an article and post it here. I would definitely be interested in reading it!
 
How many refunds have they issued though? I've seen quite a few posts of people requesting, and getting, them.
 
Have I missed something but is there any word on if Red have anything to get R3D's in tho FCP X or any road map ?
 
Jared Caldwell said:
So you are essentially making the argument that tools can enforce bad habbits for their users, and thus people who edit with FCPx will lack some of the left brained skills required to be a productive editor?

I don't think that statement can be made so easily, so I disagree with that part (though I understand where you are coming from).

First, do you have FCPX? I have to admit, when I first opened FCPX, I thought I was staring at iMovie. After 10 minutes of investigation, I'm already working and organizing in a way that makes me feel like I am working in FCP. If you are an editor making your living with FCPX and working on large projects, I promise you FCPX isn't going to limit your ability to organize your footage and perform "left brained tasks" (though currently, it is going to limit you in a lot of other areas until there is an update).

I don't agree with the "right-brained" "left-brained" natural selection process that you suggest will happen, but if you are really a top dog editor, won't you have an assistant to organize all of that "left-brained" stuff for you? (kidding...maybe)

I also don't agree with the oversimplification of editing tasks there, or the psychology behind the "new wave" of editors FCPX is "surely" to wrongly indoctrinate, but a lot of stuff has happened this week. It's been emotional for a lot of us, haha.
Click to expand...

No I don't own FCP X, I have used it, and I think I will buy it ... maybe soon.

Jared, both you and I are people that have learned editorial and organization on older systems. It doesn't surprise me that you are organizing away in a proper fashion.

Organization is an area where FCP X shines, in part by automating a good portion of the assistant editor's job.

Because organization is being automated, new editors will learn less of the discipline of organization.

This is already a huge problem. One of the little niches of my business is "saving" the work other editors have started. That means wading through some young film students timelines and random bins with un-named clips and subclips and lord knows what else.

Often when I am faced with this task, I spend a few days just cleaning up and organizing before I can make the first new edit.

Part of this comes from bad work habits learned on shorts and YouTube clips. You can keep a good sense of all the footage in a 5 minute "in your head" When you get up in run time for the project ... a 12 minute or an hour long documentary, you just can't remember.

Sorry, I'm explaining the obvious.

Now if these same students never organize and use FCP X's automated organization tools to handle their larger projects ... well what do you think will happen if we hand them a Smoke and let them have at a feature?

Organization wasn't the only thing I was talking about though. What about codec management? What about timeline/timecode issues? What about pulldown/pullup?

There is a lot of technology you understand that FCP X obscures with automation. If Apple does what it usually does ... this will increase over time. It's all left brained engineering stuff really- the kind of stuff most editors wish someone with "SMPTE" after their name could handle.

Doing away with the need for the editor to handle that is almost certainly a good thing ... but it will also limit the ability of the editor to move to platforms, like Premiere Pro CS5 or FCP 7, that require the editor to understand and handle it.

Avid has been moving more towards automating some of the assistant editor's job than anyone other than Apple. (And they've been doing it longer, and in cool ways!)

My point isn't that editors who learned on FCP X will be trapped forever. My point is that they face a much steeper learning curve as they move to other platforms than an FCP 7 editor does.

This is both a good and a bad thing. I haven't decided yet if its more one than the other.
 
Jared Caldwell said:
I believe it was mentioned in Progue's NYT article that Apple is currently developing an .r3d plugin.
Click to expand...

Yes it was mentioned, and was a defensive response to criticizm of the product by Apple product managers. However, I am skeptical. As of the release date of FCPX, Red Giant Software had not even seen the software, let alone been provided advance access to Apples's new APIs. I've seen the same thing from at least one additonal well-known plugin provider. Its interesting that Red has not even indirectly implied they are looking at or working on solutions with Apple. Maybe its NDA stuff, but I suspect Apple is implying more "teamwork" with third party vendors than is really happening as an attept to save face.
 
Alexander Ibrahim said:
No I don't own FCP X, I have used it, and I think I will buy it ... maybe soon.

Jared, both you and I are people that have learned editorial and organization on older systems. It doesn't surprise me that you are organizing away in a proper fashion.

Organization is an area where FCP X shines, in part by automating a good portion of the assistant editor's job.

Because organization is being automated, new editors will learn less of the discipline of organization.

This is already a huge problem. One of the little niches of my business is "saving" the work other editors have started. That means wading through some young film students timelines and random bins with un-named clips and subclips and lord knows what else.

Often when I am faced with this task, I spend a few days just cleaning up and organizing before I can make the first new edit.

Part of this comes from bad work habits learned on shorts and YouTube clips. You can keep a good sense of all the footage in a 5 minute "in your head" When you get up in run time for the project ... a 12 minute or an hour long documentary, you just can't remember.

Sorry, I'm explaining the obvious.

Now if these same students never organize and use FCP X's automated organization tools to handle their larger projects ... well what do you think will happen if we hand them a Smoke and let them have at a feature?

Organization wasn't the only thing I was talking about though. What about codec management? What about timeline/timecode issues? What about pulldown/pullup?

There is a lot of technology you understand that FCP X obscures with automation. If Apple does what it usually does ... this will increase over time. It's all left brained engineering stuff really- the kind of stuff most editors wish someone with "SMPTE" after their name could handle.

Doing away with the need for the editor to handle that is almost certainly a good thing ... but it will also limit the ability of the editor to move to platforms, like Premiere Pro CS5 or FCP 7, that require the editor to understand and handle it.

Avid has been moving more towards automating some of the assistant editor's job than anyone other than Apple. (And they've been doing it longer, and in cool ways!)

My point isn't that editors who learned on FCP X will be trapped forever. My point is that they face a much steeper learning curve as they move to other platforms than an FCP 7 editor does.

This is both a good and a bad thing. I haven't decided yet if its more one than the other.
Click to expand...

I can agree with most of these points, and I think we can agree on this: if you are using software as a tool to perform tasks, the ability and the willingness to learn new things is a prerequisite.

I worked as an assistant editor for two years and have moved up to editor on bigger projects. I went to a university to study computer science, and am currently in grad school for Human Computer Interaction, so I am looking at this from two different perspectives. As an editor that uses d-cinema or DI to edit on an NLE, I know 2 things: the current software I am using can be improved upon so that I have better tools to edit with and perform tasks with increased performance, and that software changes. Learning a software package, though seemingly non-trivial, is in fact trivial compared to the years of experience you spend honing a craft. Things change and paradigms shift, and learning new software is a given if you are a digital editor.

Though you suggest that new editors who grow up on FCPX may have difficulties initially when switching to something like Smoke (which I agree with), I feel that part of the package is you have to be willing to learn Smoke if that's what it takes. It causes some downtime, but it is still trivial in the grand scheme of things. You aren't going to edit anymore becaus you don't want to waste time learning a new tool? Instead of wasting days, you are wasting years. (You aren't suggesting the contrary, I'm just making that point here because I think it fits).

On the HCI side of the equation, Apple should be creating new tools that increases human performance of tasks and software that is designed for the user (editor in this case). My opinion is that the UI guys really innovated and got a lot of things right...it's just the functional requirements from the business end were VERY shortsided here. FCPX may not be the answer for you, or for me, or for anyone, but that doesn't mean that editors should think that learning new tools isn't part of the job.

That being said, I agree with you that the guys who edit their Go-Pro footage in 10 minutes and call themselves an experienced editor in FCPX will be in for some surprises when they go in for job interviews, but I don't think FCPX changes who an editor is. It's still the tired statement we see here that is so true: it's the person behind the tools that makes the film.
 
Alexander Ibrahim said:
Organization is an area where FCP X shines, in part by automating a good portion of the assistant editor's job.

Because organization is being automated, new editors will learn less of the discipline of organization..
Click to expand...

I wade in cautiously here... there is enough antagonism afloat against anyone who actually likes the software, but...

I have spent several hours with the software now. In addition, I am in the process of reviewing some training materials that were produced by Michael Wohl - who worked on the original FCP and is now an FCP trainer. I am very impressed with the organizational capabilities of the software but the automated part is just the beginning. I think there is a huge amount of flexibility to organize projects very effectively in whatever ways work best for the individual and, in fact, I believe that the structure of FCP-X will force and support a discipline for organization that, for some, might not otherwise be there.

Once you understand how solidly the app is built on a database platform, you start to realize how far and deep it can be extended going forward. For example, I have a sense (only that) that FC Server is no longer necessary because eventually (go ahead, rag on me for looking ahead), I think the individual seats will be able to share information very effectively and may end up allowing a certain level of automation in shared workflow. I also see the possibility of adding modules (for lack of another term) that will allow connection of scripts (yeah, like Premiere - but perhaps more flexibly and fully) or other types of documents and apps. And I wonder if XML import/export was left out at this stage because there will be a more powerful set of capabilities for moving projects around.

As some have pointed out, it seems like a platform more than just an app. Time will tell, eh? :coolgleamA:

Peace
 
Terry VerHaar said:
... I wonder if XML import/export was left out at this stage because there will be a more powerful set of capabilities for moving projects around.
Click to expand...

I agree generally with most of what you wrote.

Leaving out XML in favor of "something new" is a potential disaster of product ending proportions.

The point of a standard interface format is that it is standard!!

As I wrote to David Pogue, no matter how cool and advanced the "new system" that Apple is working on is, it is 100% useless until other products can interact with it.

In the meantime, how do I get my project out of the FCP X system into Resolve, Premiere Pro, AE, Nuke, Smoke, Avid, Logic etc etc.?

Sorry ... it is impossible for Apple to develop a system that is more useful than XML interchange is today - unless they are also going to develop code for all of those other applications to interact with that system.

So, put flatly XML support for both input and output must be made available, and that - not multicam- should be their top priority.

After all if I have XML I can output my project and use FCP 7's multicam.

Until interchange is fixed in a way that allows me to work with the rest of the industry's products editors using FCP X will be limited to what that program can do for them.

This makes FCP 6/7, and iMovie more powerful post solutions.

Apple's more advanced and better solution? I'm eager to see it, and use it. But, unless it also provides XML import/export its useless until it garners wide industry support ... i.e. until its standard.
 
Alexander Ibrahim said:
I agree generally with most of what you wrote.

Leaving out XML in favor of "something new" is a potential disaster of product ending proportions.

The point of a standard interface format is that it is standard!!

As I wrote to David Pogue, no matter how cool and advanced the "new system" that Apple is working on is, it is 100% useless until other products can interact with it.

In the meantime, how do I get my project out of the FCP X system into Resolve, Premiere Pro, AE, Nuke, Smoke, Avid, Logic etc etc.?

Sorry ... it is impossible for Apple to develop a system that is more useful than XML interchange is today - unless they are also going to develop code for all of those other applications to interact with that system.

So, put flatly XML support for both input and output must be made available, and that - not multicam- should be their top priority.

After all if I have XML I can output my project and use FCP 7's multicam.

Until interchange is fixed in a way that allows me to work with the rest of the industry's products editors using FCP X will be limited to what that program can do for them.

This makes FCP 6/7, and iMovie more powerful post solutions.

Apple's more advanced and better solution? I'm eager to see it, and use it. But, unless it also provides XML import/export its useless until it garners wide industry support ... i.e. until its standard.
Click to expand...

Of course, by definition, you are right at the present time because there is no support for moving projects around. One of at least a few reasons why no serious editor (especially one who is working in a team environment) would suddenly switch to FCPX right now. No argument there. My conjecture is that there might be something of a "superset" of capabilities that will understand XML but will add additional capabilities. And/or, perhaps there are or will be "hooks" in the SDK which will make the "send to" and "import" capabilities that much more powerful and customized for particular apps. I understand that any of this stuff, if it is even true, would not satisfy the uproar of these missing features now. But, usually when you want to shift a paradigm, you have to leave some things behind.
 
Terry VerHaar said:
Of course, by definition, you are right at the present time because there is no support for moving projects around. One of at least a few reasons why no serious editor (especially one who is working in a team environment) would suddenly switch to FCPX right now. No argument there. My conjecture is that there might be something of a "superset" of capabilities that will understand XML but will add additional capabilities. And/or, perhaps there are or will be "hooks" in the SDK which will make the "send to" and "import" capabilities that much more powerful and customized for particular apps. I understand that any of this stuff, if it is even true, would not satisfy the uproar of these missing features now. But, usually when you want to shift a paradigm, you have to leave some things behind.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand me.

Today I can export an XML from FCP 6 or 7, and import it into Resolve and go right to work.

Apple's "new system" won't be a part of Resolve ... or any other 3rd party application.

So, they have to support XML in and out.

Shipping without XML support is the biggest part of this disaster.

A new system that is a superset of XML interchange will be awesome ... but have a good look. What will be able to interchange with that superset system?

Useless.

Unless that new system also supports XML ... XML which should have been there from day zero.

Of course, that still makes the superset features useless ... because all you have that is useful is XML interchange.
 
Michael Hancock said:
How many refunds have they issued though? I've seen quite a few posts of people requesting, and getting, them.
Click to expand...

Finally got a response from Apple.ca. With A bunch of cut and paste text he informed me that he cannot give me a refund as its against App store policy.
Needless to say I asked for an escalation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top